List files in a WebSex engagement workspace by engagement ID to inspect evidence artifacts, with optional path and recursive browsing for pentesting workflows.
List files within the WebSex engagement workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | . | |
| recursive | No | ||
| engagement_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' weakly implies a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about permissions, whether results are paginated, how deep a listing goes, or what happens if the path does not exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is achieved partly by omitting information the agent needs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required, but the definition still leaves the three undocumented parameters, the absence of any usage routing against three sibling workspace tools, and basic operational behavior unaddressed. It is too thin for a tool in a crowded namespace.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters, so the schema provides no textual meaning either. The description does not mention 'path', 'recursive', or how 'engagement_id' scopes the listing, leaving the agent to infer parameter intent from bare property names and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('List files') scoped to the engagement workspace, so the agent knows the general action. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from the sibling tools websex_workspace_read, websex_workspace_write, and websex_workspace_delete, which all operate on the same workspace.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus workspace_read or workspace_delete beyond the word 'files'. No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no mention of what the listing is useful for are provided. Usage is only weakly implied by the name and verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.